Kansas defensive lineman Keon Stowers comes away with the ball after recovering a Louisiana Tech fumble late in the fourth quarter to give the Jayhawks the ball back.
by Nick Krug

One glance at our "new" box score shows that LA Tech was the better team Saturday. The Bulldogs were better in yards per play, yards per possession, average field position, explosive plays ... pretty much any category you want to look at.

That sometimes isn't enough, though, when you can't hold onto the football.

Though Tech had only one more turnover than KU (3-2), the Bulldogs' miscues were much more costly. If we look at equivalent points — the number of points a team is likely to score on a drive from a certain yard line, plus the average number of points the opponent is likely to score on the ensuing possession — we see that quarterback Ryan Higgins' fumble cost his team an estimated 6.79 points (the ball at the opponent's 2 is worth 7.11 points; KU getting the ball at its own 20 is worth -0.32 points to KU) and Kenneth Dixon's fumble cost his team an estimated 5.54 points.

Add it up, and those 12 points given to KU — along with some timely offense from the Jayhawks — made up for KU's other deficiencies.

It's time to be concerned about the run game

Remember, for this box score, any negative yards on sacks go in to "Passing Yards" category, which makes the Jayhawks' 3.8-yard-per-carry rushing average look even worse.

KU coach Charlie Weis said after the game that his offensive line was getting beaten routinely inside by Tech's front four, so he altered his game plan to try to attack the Bulldogs with the passing game on the edges.

Playing musical chairs with the offensive line probably didn't help, either. At times, the right side of KU's line (Dylan Admire, Damon Martin, Riley Spencer) featured three players that didn't even start in the team's previous game against Rice.

After watching this year's struggles, it seems likely we probably didn't give enough credit to offensive linemen Tanner Hawkinson, Trevor Marrongelli and Duane Zlatnik for clearing the holes they did for the running game a season ago.

After I showed him the video of KU's offensive line getting blown up by Rice's front four, "Coach" made the comment that there was a possibility that this year's Jayhawks might not be suited to be a run-first team.

"You have to tailor your offense around the type of players that you have," Coach said. "Last year was the 2012 KU Jayhawks. The 2012 KU Jayhawks are only going to happen once ever. The 2013 Jayhawks are a new team, so maybe they’re not going to be as great at running the ball, so maybe they need to do other things."

It's looking more and more like that with each passing week.

KU's passing game much more efficient

Kansas receiver Christian Matthews hauls in a pass with Louisiana Tech defensive back Xavier Woods on his back during the fourth quarter.
by Nick Krug

For the first time this year, KU completed more than 50 percent of its passes in a game, as Jake Heaps was 28-for-46, good for a 61-percent completion rate.

One encouraging sign for KU was that many of its pass plays were simpler. Heaps said after the game that the Jayhawks took quite a few "free" yards on rollout plays, simply taking advantage of what the defense was giving to pick up some short yardage.

The Jayhawks still aren't much of a threat to break a deep pass play, but some passing game is better than none. With KU's run getting stuffed all game, Heaps at least showed the ability to get moderate gains through the air, while the receivers limited their drops to help the pass game's efficiency.

KU's run defense starting to show some holes

KU's pass defense once again was a bright spot, coming up with nine pass breakups while holding Tech to an excellent 4.5 yards per pass attempt.

On the other hand, the Jayhawks continue to get gashed by a variety of running plays.

Against Rice, it was the read- and speed-option that burned KU. Against LA Tech, KU struggled against more traditional running plays, allowing an "explosive run" (12 or more yards) on nearly a-fourth of the Bulldogs' rushes (seven of 29 run plays).

Almost every team in the Big 12 is pass-happy, so KU is better off having a team that is built to defend the pass rather than the run.

Still, KU is about to face better running backs, so some improvement is needed to get opposing offenses into passing downs so KU can take advantage of the impressive secondary it has assembled.

Take a bow, Trevor Pardula

I believe I'm safe in saying this is a game KU definitely would have lost a year ago without punter Trevor Pardula.

The juco transfer saved the Jayhawks on Saturday when it came to field position. Though KU didn't get good field position often (average start of own 19), Pardula made sure that Tech didn't have better field position, as his booming punts ensured that Tech's average drive start was its own 28.

Field position matters, too. Tech had a nine-yard advantage on average field position, and in 2012, FBS teams won 71.6 percent of the games when their field position was eight-to-12 yards better than their opponents.

As mentioned in the first week's blog, when two FBS teams played in 2012 and one team had an advantage of 12 yards or more per drive in field position, that team's record was 151-10 (.938). And without Pardula netting 55.8 yards on his five punts, KU most likely loses the field-position battle by at least 12 yards.

Through three games, Pardula has probably made the biggest impact of any juco player Weis brought in for this season.

Playmakers needed

Kansas receiver Rod Coleman has a pass broken up by Louisiana Tech defenders Thomas McDonald (33) and Le'Vander Liggins (13) during the third quarter on Saturday, Sept. 21, 2013 at Memorial Stadium.
by Nick Krug

KU had more possessions and more plays than an average contest, yet the Jayhawks mustered just six "explosive" plays.

What's also troubling is that KU had quite a bit of issues on first down — a down where a team should have most of the playbook open. KU averaged just 3.1 yards on first down, with the same number of first-down plays going for negative yards (three) as 10-plus-yard gains (three).

The Jayhawks performed some second-down miracles while doing a good job of avoiding sacks to keep their third-down distances manageable (6.1 average yards to go), but the fact is, KU's offense is going to continue to struggle if someone doesn't emerge to break off 30-plus-yard plays every once in a while (KU had none against LA Tech).

Weis did a better job of getting speedy Tony Pierson the ball on Saturday, but there's still work to be done to get him more opportunities in the open field.

Through three games — and a 2-1 record — I'd argue that Pierson and receiver Rodriguez Coleman are the most significant players for this team moving forward.

Those guys provide KU with the best hope at breaking off big plays, which will be vital if the Jayhawks can't get their offensive line — and running game — back to last year's form.

Comments

Nice write up, Jesse, thanks.
The only part I would take some issue with is this --

"The Jayhawks performed some second-down miracles while doing a good job of avoiding sacks to keep their third-down distances manageable (6.1 average yards to go), but the fact is, KU's offense is going to continue to struggle if someone doesn't emerge to break off 30-plus-yard plays every once in a while (KU had none against LA Tech)."

We know from last year we have the skill people to break off those explosive plays, we don't need "someone [to] emerge". However, as you noted earlier in your write up, they need help from the O line to get them in position to make those plays possible. I understand that Grunhard said the O line has to communicate better to handle the stunts and twists that opposing D lines are using against them. Whatever the O line issues are, if they cannot be improved upon, KU will be sore pressed to succeed on O this year.

I wasn't at the game this week, so I only have a TV view, but it didn't look as though the offensive line was getting physically blown up this game as much as they were missing assignments and letting someone come unblocked. That should be fixable, one would hope.

I couldn't really tell what was happening on run defense, but it appeared as though our linemen couldn't get off their blocks very well. The linemen did get some good pressure a few times, though.

There are many problems to fix, and it might well be that we've won for the last time this year, but the team showed some real character, and we have lots more playmakers on defense than we've had in quite some time. Both lines are worrisome, but I'm choosing to be optimistic that these are fixable issues.

I thought the positioning of our linebackers was very odd on Saturday, often it looked like there was nobody in the middle at the time of the snap so once the runner got past the line of scrimmage it was clean sailing. Also, it looked like we were placing a lot of emphasis on stripping the ball and not enough on tackling.

Both tackles were consistently blown up. The defensive end on Sterling owned him. Heaps had no time to operate, and the offensive line's run blocking as a whole was totally inept. They just weren't assignment sound or aggressive. At this point in the season I'm really worried about the the O line.

It all starts with the O-line; their play is critically important for the success of the offense. Let's hope these guys can step up or it may be a long, frustrating season on the offensive side of the ball.

Me, too. I'm all about the o-line, and ours isn't good. I was just trying to convince myself that the problems are technique and assignments, which are fixable, rather than strength, which requires an off season.

We look pudgy, slow and out of shape on the O line. For all of the talk about off season conditioning it looks to me like the O line took the summer off. I know that's not the case, but it sure looks that way. There is a problem when we can't dominate the line of scrimmage against Conference USA teams.

I think we may need to start recruiting slightly smaller offensive linemen with a little more quickness. Slow clearly isn't getting the job done in either the running or the passing games.

I've been to several D2 games over the years and those lineman typically look as big as D1 linemen. The obvious difference is the D1 guys are a bit quicker and faster. Our O Line looks like those D2 lines I've seen, not like D1 lines. We need to recruit those positions better.

06 - You apparently missed the heart of my comments as well as the objective numbers that Jesse did present. The numbers back-up the one comment you took exception to. KU won the passing and kicking game. Check out the numbers. Be objective.

I'm just curious how you get that KU won the passing game from the numbers. Fewer yards, fewer completions, more interceptions, lower completion percentage. I would listen to an argument that they were pretty much equal, but I don't see how we can argue that KU won the passing game.

Fewer yards only until you remove the sacks. Net yardage is still better for KU even though there were fewer attempts, which leads to significantly better YPA & YPC. Their probably better even with the gross yardage just because of the difference in attempts. Heck, even 20% more attempts leads to fewer explosive plays.

The interceptions are a negative, but fewer completions is just a factor of fewer attempts and the difference in comp% is 1 completion. That is statistically irrelevant.

I liked Weis's play calling better against LaTech than against Rice. It involved more of our playmakers - Sims, Pierson, Bourbon. The box score on ESPN showed that Miller only had 3 carries. Miller's another piece to the puzzle that Weis needs to add to the mix. Not sure that our O-line can open holes for him so maybe mix him in for a screen pass every so often or a sweep with Bourbon in the backfield as another blocker. I also think we need to get Coleman more involved but he needs some routes that will get him open. Maybe have him run more curl / button hook routes.

I agree with Jesse's observations. Really not looking forwards to our D-line having to match up with Baylor / Seastrunk. That is gonna' be a brutal game to watch. Our O-line looked more effective at pass blocking, looked like Heaps had more time to choose his receiver against LaTech than against Rice so that's an improvement.

"KU had more possessions and more plays than an average contest, yet the Jayhawks mustered just six "explosive" plays."

For context how many "explosive" plays should a normal team average per "regular" play? Do teams average 1 explosive play for every 8 regular plays? Sure, I'd like some more explosive plays. However I need some factual context to decide if I'm concerned about it.

Good question. CFBstats.com can give us some context, as it measures a team's explosive plays.

For 20-plus-yard catches, the median CFB team is at about 11 20-yard catches this season, though some teams have three games and others have four. I'd guess teams would average about 4 20+ yard catches per game. KU has six total this season, which puts it at tied for 105th nationally. Again, KU has one fewer game than a lot of teams, which hurts its number there.

CFBstats doesn't measure 12-plus-yard rushes, but it does measure 10-plus-yard ones. The median is at 31 for the season, but again, teams have played different amounts of games, so 8 per game is probably a good estimate for 10-plus-yard runs per game. KU is tied for 104th nationally with 21 total 10-plus-yard runs — again with one fewer game than a lot of teams.

It would appear that you think 1's practice against 1's, but I don't think that is the case. I believe they both go against a scout team - the players that don't make the 2-deep, which sort of underscores your point. I don't know that it is particularly different for KU than any other team.

Defense will have carry this team(Ben Heeney keep the D fired up!!) Was Matthews sick last week against Rice I didn't see him play , the guy looked like a Big 12 receiver that went and got the ball against La. Tech.(good hops). Love Pierson on those short dump off passes,yards after the catch are good ,Heaps got alike that. Coleman made a great catch but still looks a little awkward out there,time will help this guy.We still don't have a true long ball threat, When I look at the roster of receivers we have that I've seen play, I wonder why Truzilli is not on the field . Truzilli kicked TCUs corners but last year. Truzilli looked fast last year and was a big target. Heaps has the arm to go deep. If we don't go deep once in a while defenses are going to choke off our short game. I like our RBs I think Sims and Miller will run tough. Mundine finally played like himself. Offense needs to be more creative if we are going to compete against Big 12 defenses!!

The thing that bothers me most about the offense is the play calling. Except for a few passes to the tight ends, it seems to me that there was little play action or fakes to running backs. A lot of the time on a pass play, KU lines up with no one in the back field. Looks like a pass play to me, there is no deception. It also seems that there is little mixing up of pass or run plays on a particular drive. It's all run one drive, then all pass the next. I really hate the plays with no one in the backfield. KU's receivers don't seem to get a lot of separation and it doesn't help when the defense knows it's going to be a pass play (i.e. no one in the backfield). I thought Charlie Weis was suppose to be an offensive genius. So far, I'm not seeing it.

The scouting report on Kansas going into the season said, "The strength of the Kansas offense is their backfield. If you shut down the running game, you may rattle a quarterback that has been out of the game long enough to lack confidence in his passing. With key departures from the offensive line, it may be easier for your defense to neutralize any advantage Kansas might have otherwise enjoyed. Weis will try to establish Sims, Miller and Cox early and often, not only in an offensive set with conventional handoffs, but with screen passes to the flat."

The Kansas running game is not what people thought it would have been at this point in the season (with cupcakes scheduled early, many may have anticipated large gains on the ground). But what has happened, in essence, is that defenses have adjusted and are now focused on stopping the run. Yes, with the inexperience on the offensive line, this is easier to do (refer to Tom Keegan's article a week or so ago which appropriately addressed how few of those guys have played together). The way to open up the run again is to go down the field. Make defenses respect the pass if they're gonna stack the box. Play action is a great way to do this. Three or four 20 yard gains down the field will be enough to soften the defense enough to allow your runners to do damage. You have to mix it up more! Throw past the line of scrimmage! Throw beyond the first down marker. And for the love of Pete, throw on first down more. If you had a short gain on first down, and you decide to pass on second down but don't complete the pass, you have a third and long situation. Everything should be geared toward making your third down situations as short as possible. Besides that, it opens up the playbook on 3rd down (because in third and long defenses are expecting the pass). The answer? Throw on FIRST down. And did I say go down the field? Well, dammit, matriculate the ball DOWN THE FIELD!!!! This ain't rocket science. Pass to open up the run; then run to make them respect your pass. All options will be open.

This is college football. Have the receivers coach adjust the route running if speed is an issue. For example in a stop and go route, you dont use speed for separation, you use trickery. There are any number of ways to adjust routes. Hitch routes (seven yard sprint, stop on a dime, turn and return one yard to meet the ball in the air--requires NO speed). Pick plays on flags, drags or post routes. Etc., Etc. Play action. Everything including the flea flicker. There are a thousand ways to compensate for lack of speed. Don't get me wrong, you are better WITH it. But there are some adjustments that you can make if your receivers arent Speedy Gonzales.

JRoss, I absolutely agree. If you're not throwing about 50% of the time on first down you're missing a golden opportunity. They don't have to be long passes, just enough to keep the defense honest. We're not good enough on the line to force our will and run it down the opponents' throats. The easiest down to throw on is first down, or second and short. We have to do a better job of keeping defenses guessing.

I definately hear ya but I do think those La Tech D Lineman were huge and athletic. . . just saying not a huge drop off in athletic ability. #41 was a freak and some other guy was at T Tech transfer. But year our O Line has looked weak.

Am I the only one who thought part of the reason our run defense didn’t look good was because Dixon was beasting? I know we failed to maintain some gaps, but this guy was carrying piles and ripping through tackle after tackle. He was on a mission.

Certainly an argument can be made for bad tackling, but even Ben Heeney was having some trouble with this guy, so I don’t think my eyes were entirely fooling me.

I think their D got worn down. We started moving the ball late. They got almost no pass rush late in the game and Sims was zipping through holes. I thought our defense seemed to get stronger as the game went on. Especially after they started to figure out that garbage spread offensive plan that Holtz threw out there. That has to be the most boring spread offense I’ve ever seen. 80% of the passes were 2 yard sideline “routes”. I was BEGGING Jacorey to jump one of those.